Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Capitalism Is For Dummies.

page: 11
40
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
reply to post by gentledissident
 


lol....I'd go to the foreclosure auctions, buy the foreclosed homes, contact the original owners that lost them and sell the back to them for $200 a month for two years!! use the loss as a writeoff on my taxes if it was possible.

That would be very kind. It's nice to read that you think that way.




posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by nightbringrAnd.............which society do you propose we emulate that is free of corruption, greed and the desire for advancement?


Who is trying to limit advancement, here, exactly? If you mean to say that the selfishness of today can be linked to disposable income, than that is indeed capitalism's fault. If you mean to say that electronics are part of the problem, then that could be the media's fault. I don't know where this is leading, though


My motivation is always oriented to "what i want to do". And no, i never once suggested "everyone" wants to be lazy. And no, not everyone should be able to work ANY job they want. Someone with less than average intelligence should NOT be a brain surgeon. They must be able to pass a very hard course. The requirements on such things weeds out the chaff and those incapable. We are not all created equal.


No one said that society would just hand out occupations, of course they would have to qualify before getting a job


And a doctor is an enjoyable job? You have got to be kidding me! They make incredible money for very good reasons. They must pass many years of schooling and have to put their hands places most people wouldnt touch. Your a bit out of touch with reality i think.


You're right, NO ONE wants to be a doctor, NO ONE wants to help cure peoples ails, NO ONE wants delve into the ever expanding field of medicine, NO ONE wants to find new cures to the emerging diseases of the world, NO ONE wants to enjoy the great amount of social respect and responsibility that comes with being a doctor. These are things that alot of people would want to do and experience, but cannot because they have to suffer being born into poor economic conditions. Why do you think that workplaces and emerging fields try and recruit people based on that they're going to DO rather than what they are going to get paid? It's because the actual interest in the field plays a big role in what people want to do


And some people are motivated to do what they want. And that is to sit on their asses collecting welfare, drinking or doing criminal activities.


"Hey little Billy, what do you want to do when you grow up?" "I want to be a welfare collector who purposefully limits the scope of his personal enjoyment!" No one says that, by the way
edit on 8-6-2012 by BurntGermanTongue because: Hi



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by nightbringr

Originally posted by apushforenlightment

Are not capitalism a competition?

Of course not. Who are you competing against? Your neighbour? Do you feel a need to have a better SUV then them? If so, you need to look in the mirror to find the problem, not at capitalism. Just because the TV tells you you have to have a BMW doesnt mean you have to listen to it. Be an individual who thinks for himself.

Originally posted by apushforenlightment
Do not competition have winners?

Again, YOU view life as a contest. Mirror.

Originally posted by apushforenlightment
Do not the winners of capitalism get more money?

Not always. For me, hard work made me more money and a better life. I didnt start with much.


Originally posted by apushforenlightment
Do not the people who have money have an easier time to get more money?

True. Makes it worthwhile to work hard to get ahead in life, doesnt it?

Originally posted by apushforenlightment
If this is not a pyramid scheme then I do not know what a pyramid scheme is.

Why do you care if Bill Gates has more money than you? Work hard, acheive and life life to its fullest. Being resentful of others gets you no where but bitter.

Originally posted by apushforenlightment
The only way you can be free in a capitalism and have a choice to participate or not is if you are self sufficent and own yourself the land you need to be self sufficent and there is not tax at all. Because the tax is a parasite on the individual that is parasited on by the capitalists that are winning the game.

Typical socialist bull. Your taxed much more under socialism. Have to pay for all those parasites who choose not to work!

edit on 8-6-2012 by nightbringr because: (no reason given)


Good job not seeing the obvious problem with wealth distribution to the top. Go to china and see how they work there and understand that this is your future as you get less and less power/part of the wealth as cost increase and wages go down dramaticly. Why would I dislike Bill Gates very much. He gives some back at least. Temporary increase in wealth for a person is not the problem. It is the continuation of wealth dissapering to the top from below that is the problem. And that top will probably leave with the wealth and the people will have to pay for the problems with your budget if not the federal bank is able to create so much money that your problems dissapear. But I wonder what the other countries will say when your currency stop being worth anything at all. It is your life. If you wanna belive in the system then do it. But I face my own hypocracy. Some of my standard of living is payed for by the missary of third world workers. And I see that a big part of the middleclass is on it's way to become lower class.
edit on 8-6-2012 by apushforenlightment because: spellchecking



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by BurntGermanTongue

Private property is not just "owning something," it is the concept in which possessions under your purview are inalienable and eternally exploitable. The natives from days of past have not used the money in which capitalism uses it, they used it as things that were evenly distributed and could be exchanged for whatever they needed. When new things were introduced to tribes, they could not simply distribute everything they owned evenly, what if person X didn't need object Y, and Person Z needed it more? The currency could be used for a person's needs. HOWEVER, it was not attained by merits or by achievements, it was just like the old system of even distribution, but with the ability to "purchase" different objects for a need basis. It was still "socialist"


wow, you sir LOVE to twist the truth and history to fit your needs... Ancient tribes were not socialist... They didn't have a government that decided what people need, and what they don't need... That is socialism...

In socialism the means of production is owned and controlled by the STATE/government... Appart from that ALL private property is banned in socialism since private property is a right in CAPITALISM, and socialists HATE CAPITALISM...

Ancient people/ancient tribes owned things, and THEY ALONE decided what to do with those things they owned...

Ancient people did not just "get exactly the basic needs and stopped at the bare minimum"... They worked to make their lives better, to thrive... That means MORE than just the bare minimum which socialism is known for...

in socialism you need the consent of the government for you to sell or buy things, and how many you can buy... This is not what happened with ancient tribes, so you are completely wrong... Ancient tribes WERE NOT SOCIALIST...


edit on 8-6-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by BurntGermanTongue

Originally posted by nightbringrAnd.............which society do you propose we emulate that is free of corruption, greed and the desire for advancement?


Who is trying to limit advancement, here, exactly? If you mean to say that the selfishness of today can be linked to disposable income, than that is indeed capitalism's fault. If you mean to say that electronics are part of the problem, then that could be the media's fault. I don't know where this is leading, though

Selfishness is universal and eternal. Long before capitalism we had feudalism. Were the kings and queens not selfish and covet what other kings and queens had? Did the serf not aspire to become a knight? The knight not aspire to become a lord? The lords kings? Capitalism does not create jealously, greed or selfishness, those are human traits. Its an important part of our makeup and the drive to survive and succeed. If people were complacient, we would never have become the dominant species on our planet and would have died as a species many millenia ago.

Originally posted by BurntGermanTongue

My motivation is always oriented to "what i want to do". And no, i never once suggested "everyone" wants to be lazy. And no, not everyone should be able to work ANY job they want. Someone with less than average intelligence should NOT be a brain surgeon. They must be able to pass a very hard course. The requirements on such things weeds out the chaff and those incapable. We are not all created equal.


No one said that society would just hand out occupations, of course they would have to qualify before getting a job

And how is this different from now?

Originally posted by BurntGermanTongue

And a doctor is an enjoyable job? You have got to be kidding me! They make incredible money for very good reasons. They must pass many years of schooling and have to put their hands places most people wouldnt touch. Your a bit out of touch with reality i think.


You're right, NO ONE wants to be a doctor, NO ONE wants to help cure peoples ails, NO ONE wants delve into the ever expanding field of medicine, NO ONE wants to find new cures to the emerging diseases of the world, NO ONE wants to enjoy the great amount of social respect and responsibility that comes with being a doctor. These are things that alot of people would want to do and experience, but cannot because they have to suffer being born into poor economic conditions. Why do you think that workplaces and emerging fields try and recruit people based on that they're going to DO rather than what they are going to get paid? It's because the actual interest in the field plays a big role in what people want to do

No idea what your getting at here. Some want to be doctors, some dont. Your original point was that it was a fun job. While that may be true from some, it certainly is not for all. What is it you propose? Free schooling for all, even at university level? Wow i see a whole lot of Van Wilders milking that for years, never intending to do more in the end than being a construction worker. But the 10 years spent in university on public funding and tax money is gonna be great! Yeah!

Originally posted by BurntGermanTongue

And some people are motivated to do what they want. And that is to sit on their asses collecting welfare, drinking or doing criminal activities.


"Hey little Billy, what do you want to do when you grow up?" "I want to be a welfare collector who purposefully limits the scope of his personal enjoyment!" No one says that, by the way

No, they dont. But it happens, doesnt it?

Maybe not in your country. Im sure each and every person there contributes, never misses a day of work because they love it so much and all people donate their personal time and excess money to help the advancement of society. Yeah, that sounds like a great world, but its not true or realistic, is it? I suppose your country has no criminals who live off the avails of others? No biker gangs, no street gangs, no drug dealers, pimps, nothing. Nope! Everyone works and pays their taxes! Doubtful.
edit on 8-6-2012 by nightbringr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


but, one could devise a socialist society where anyone could have anything, as long as the resources were available and the members of the society was willing to do their part to keep things running. we have plenty of empty homes in american, and lots of homeless also. I don't know if the Soviet Union has much homelessness, but I know that you had to be in the in crowd to get decent living areas! seems like there is a problem here that is not related to the type of economy we are running. we don't want all of our goods to be open to just anyone, we are humans, and we need to feel that we are superior to some, more deserving, and well, we need to be able to want something we can't have and aspire to reach a point in our lives where we can have them.
so, I think it is possible that we could devise a society where we could go to work for 40 hours a week, and then go to the store, buy whatever we wanted and things could run just fine....
but, I don't see where we will do such a thing in the near future, since humanity is still in this phase, might never come out of it, where we feel that there are people that are less than us, and people that are more....based on values that I fail to comprehend really, but still, it's there. ain't no system gonna work that great while it's there.
the truth is, the maid that cleans your hotel room should be just as valued in your eyes as anyone else you run into. we all play a role, and if you took out some of those low paid workers, well, I would hope you would see that you would lose a bit of value in the quality of your life! .



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
wow, you sir LOVE to twist the truth and history to fit your needs... Ancient tribes were not socialist... They didn't have a government that decided what people need, and what they don't need... That is socialism...


Uh, just because they lack an official governing body does not mean it does not share characteristics common with socialism. The collective ownership concept is still there, the "common good" concept is still there, the conservation of material is still there


In socialism the means ofproduction is owned and controlled by the STATE/government... Appart from that ALL private property is banned in socialism since private property is a right in CAPITALISM, and socialists HATE CAPITALISM...


Thanks for giving us the 1920's definition that was made to make it sound all evil and scary. You're a champ. In socialism, the means of production are owned both by the workers of the workplaces and by the public at large. Since the government would be organized by ELECTED representatives of worker's councils, there would be little disconnect from the government and the people, unlike today, where they are separate entities.


Ancient people did not just "get exactly the basic needs and stopped at the bare minimum"... They worked to make their lives better, to thrive... That means MORE than just the bare minimum which socialism is known for...


No one said anything about bare minimum, however, given the projected rise in human population (upload.wikimedia.org...), it would eventually HAVE to come to that, whether you like it or not. The wasteful nature of capitalism will only further speed this up


in socialism you need the consent of the government for you to sell or buy things, and how many you can buy... This is not what happened with ancient tribes, so you are completely wrong...


This too is not true. Possessions in socialism are still owned by the public, and are not considered private property to avoid the possibility of exploiting land, workers, and production. However, that does not mean that the objects that are given to people to suit their needs or wants cannot be used by themselves, their rights of its use are simply limited to avoid exploitation. Also, why would you need to sell things anyways when you would be provided for from the get go?



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by nightbringr
Selfishness is universal and eternal. Long before capitalism we had feudalism. Were the kings and queens not selfish and covet what other kings and queens had? Did the serf not aspire to become a knight? The knight not aspire to become a lord? The lords kings? Capitalism does not create jealously, greed or selfishness, those are human traits. Its an important part of our makeup and the drive to survive and succeed. If people were complacient, we would never have become the dominant species on our planet and would have died as a species many millenia ago.


The tales of aspiration you claim existed are either myths forged during the renaissance to exaggerate the feudal times or came during the late feudal times where market expansion and countless crusades threw feudalism into question. There was no true aspiration at the time because it was a caste system, everyone knew it was impossible to escape your class whether you wanted to or not


And how is this different from now?


It's not. No one is questioning qualification


No idea what your getting at here. Some want to be doctors, some dont. Your original point was that it was a fun job. While that may be true from some, it certainly is not for all.


My original point was that these occupations will indeed see the same, if not more because of advanced educational opportunities, amount of people going into them despite money not being a factor


What is it you propose? Free schooling for all, even at university level? Wow i see a whole lot of Van Wilders milking that for years, never intending to do more in the end than being a construction worker. But the 10 years spent in university on public funding and tax money is gonna be great! Yeah!


But, again, why would people do this? Go through schooling in a career they want and then not do anything with it? You can't just point out a ridiculous hypothetical situation that no one would ever engage in and then use it as a point for your argument. "Hey guys, someone could insert their genitalia into a blender, therefore we should not create blenders"


Maybe not in your country. Im sure each and every person there contributes, never misses a day of work because they love it so much and all people donate their personal time and excess money to help the advancement of society. Yeah, that sounds like a great world, but its not true or realistic, is it? I suppose your country has no criminals who live off the avails of others? No biker gangs, no street gangs, no drug dealers, pimps, nothing. Nope! Everyone works and pays their taxes! Doubtful.


Thanks for pointing out the countless flaws of capitalism. Just because the socio economic situation is poopy does not mean it has to be



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   
some areas would be more efficient and solve some problems if they were socialized a little.
a town could stop all cars outside it's town, and provide the people with small electric golf carts for their use in town. and the could enjoy clean air!! heck, the towns could cooperate with one another and well, provide a means between the towns...
and for those who don't like this idea, I'm afraid .I am describing part of a recurring dream I've had since childhood, it wouldn't surprise me much if this was where we are heading....of course, this is after the wars, natural disasters and well the population is alot less, the cities have all had to be rebuilt so they are designed differently, and there are fewer of them. sorry, it's really quite socialist, not perfect, has it's flaws, but definately is quite a bit socialist.
to be honest, I kind of wonder if that is the natural course of capitalism, it works great as long as the society is the one with the newest, best products and can keep on opening new markets to sell their goods to, but once everyone has the goods, or if another society comes up with something better, well, things start to deteriorate, and in the end, making sure that the needs of the people are met becomes more necessary, and they start progressing down that road.

and, to answer another post....
I am sorry, we workers are humans, we get sick, sometimes we have to miss work. sometimes, you might find yourself being grateful your coworkers decided to miss work, since well, some illnesses are rather contagious!
I get sick days, but then at the end of the year, if they aren't used, I get a nice check for the days I have used up. so, if I miss a day, I do pay for it! that is my incentive not to miss work! some don't get any sick days, and well they end up paying also....
sorry if you don't feel that losing out on the money that is made in 8 hours is enough of an incentive to keep people coming into work. guess you are richer than some of us?? or maybe poorer, and if you don't make it, welfare will give it to ya.
but, well, I don't have no one giving me money, so it is for me, and it really irks me when people think that staying home when they are sick is somehow such a bad thing! humans get sick, and when they are sick, they might have something that will spead through a workplace like wild fire and then, everyone will be sick. and even if they don't, they are not gonna give you the quality work that they would if they weren't sick. I mean come one, would you want your receptionist to show up at work not being able to speak above a wisper?? or hey, I'm a screen printer, use my arms alot, if I ever break my arm, I think I'll show up at work and expect to get paid for not being able to do my job!
edit on 8-6-2012 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by BurntGermanTongue

Originally posted by nightbringr
Selfishness is universal and eternal. Long before capitalism we had feudalism. Were the kings and queens not selfish and covet what other kings and queens had? Did the serf not aspire to become a knight? The knight not aspire to become a lord? The lords kings? Capitalism does not create jealously, greed or selfishness, those are human traits. Its an important part of our makeup and the drive to survive and succeed. If people were complacient, we would never have become the dominant species on our planet and would have died as a species many millenia ago.


The tales of aspiration you claim existed are either myths forged during the renaissance to exaggerate the feudal times or came during the late feudal times where market expansion and countless crusades threw feudalism into question. There was no true aspiration at the time because it was a caste system, everyone knew it was impossible to escape your class whether you wanted to or not

There was no aspiration before capitalism...................?


Considering ending this debate now. Thought i had an intelligent debate going but your telling me people had no ambition before money existed? Wow. Just...........wow. You do realize coin existed then, dont you? And merchants? People who wanted to make money and advance their lot in life? Im thinking your arguing for the sake of argueing now. I have no doubt in the caveman days, Ogg wanted to be like Grog, the tribal leader. They fight, and Ogg wins. That is aspiration. It is apparent in all species, big and small. You dont have it, you die and nature forgets you.


And how is this different from now?


It's not. No one is questioning qualification


No idea what your getting at here. Some want to be doctors, some dont. Your original point was that it was a fun job. While that may be true from some, it certainly is not for all.


Originally posted by BurntGermanTongue

What is it you propose? Free schooling for all, even at university level? Wow i see a whole lot of Van Wilders milking that for years, never intending to do more in the end than being a construction worker. But the 10 years spent in university on public funding and tax money is gonna be great! Yeah!


But, again, why would people do this? Go through schooling in a career they want and then not do anything with it? You can't just point out a ridiculous hypothetical situation that no one would ever engage in and then use it as a point for your argument. "Hey guys, someone could insert their genitalia into a blender, therefore we should not create blenders"

Again, im not sure what dream world you live in, i want in. It must be truely utopia. You dont think there are people who milk the system to have a great time in university partying and picking up university girls simpy because they can? I think i understand why you argue the way you do now. You are simply incredible naive with an incredible idealistic view of the world. I wish i could see things as you do. But alas, i am aware the world is quite messed up and not quite so perfect.

Originally posted by BurntGermanTongue

Maybe not in your country. Im sure each and every person there contributes, never misses a day of work because they love it so much and all people donate their personal time and excess money to help the advancement of society. Yeah, that sounds like a great world, but its not true or realistic, is it? I suppose your country has no criminals who live off the avails of others? No biker gangs, no street gangs, no drug dealers, pimps, nothing. Nope! Everyone works and pays their taxes! Doubtful.


Thanks for pointing out the countless flaws of capitalism. Just because the socio economic situation is poopy does not mean it has to be

I agree. I wish it wasnt so poopy either. But it is.

My two solutions to clean up capitalism:

1. End corporate political donations. No donations, no favoritism

2. End corporate lobby groups and interests


I want corporations to have no more political power than you, I or the next door neighbours dog.
edit on 8-6-2012 by nightbringr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Headshot
reply to post by apushforenlightment
 


Nope, that's fascism. You people really don't get this.


Yes, Finally!



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 06:28 PM
link   
To bad this is all theoretical gibberish because no country has tried true capitalism or socialism.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by nightbringr
There was no aspiration before capitalism...................?


Aspiration does not mean competition. There was aspiration, but it wasn't class based, nor was it with their fellow man, since their economic and social situations were set in stone


Considering ending this debate now. Thought i had an intelligent debate going but your telling me people had no ambition before money existed? Wow. Just...........wow. You do realize coin existed then, dont you? And merchants?


As I've said several times before, coin does not mean "money" in this instance, it simply means an item that can be exchanged for something else. It can be implemented with a system like feudalism where private interests are seldom


Again, im not sure what dream world you live in, i want in. It must be truely utopia. You dont think there are people who milk the system to have a great time in university partying and picking up university girls simpy because they can? I think i understand why you argue the way you do now. You are simply incredible naive with an incredible idealistic view of the world. I wish i could see things as you do. But alas, i am aware the world is quite messed up and not quite so perfect.


I, myself, am not sure where this world exists where people dodge the point entirely. You have to ask yourself WHY people would involve themselves in these crazy hypothetical situations that you claim could exist. What would they be doing with their life? "I want to go into medicine, but not get a job in medicine where I could apply my knowledge and understanding for my personal enjoyment." What?



I agree. I wish it wasnt so poopy either. But it is.

My two solutions to clean up capitalism:

1. End corporate political donations. No donations, no favoritism

2. End corporate lobby groups and interests


These are alot more unrealistic than any socio economic system. First of all, there would be no real way to put this into law. Secondly, representational government does not work in capitalism. When you exist inside of a system that promotes monetary gain, the lawmakers and the representatives are going to be subject to the interests of those who would be willing to hand out cash for their own gain, no way around it



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar

but, one could devise a socialist society where anyone could have anything, as long as the resources were available and the members of the society was willing to do their part to keep things running.
...


It wouldn't be socialism.

Under all forms of socialism no one can have private property...



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by BurntGermanTongue

Uh, just because they lack an official governing body does not mean it does not share characteristics common with socialism. The collective ownership concept is still there, the "common good" concept is still there, the conservation of material is still there


Again, you are so wrong it is not even funny... Native Americans did have a sort of government, the council of elders, which decided/decide whether the tribe should move, etc, but it couldn't decide what to do with the private property of individuals...

Collective ownership didn't//doesn't exist among most native American tribes... What a warrior found was his, and not for everyone else... What a warrior won in battle was his...Warriors had private property which included horses...

When a warrior was to marry a woman from the tribe he would offer some of his property to the father of the bride... The horses weren't collectively owned... they were owned by ONE PERSON...

Common good to an extent exists even in Capitalism... hence a free market/capitalism where people would trade things, including skills for the common good of the individuals involved...


The common good or common weal is a term that can refer to several different concepts. In the popular meaning, the common good describes a specific "good" that is shared and beneficial for all (or most) members of a given community. This is also how the common good is broadly defined in philosophy, ethics, and political science.

However there is no strict definition of the common good for each situation. The good that is common between person A and person B may not be the same as between person A and person C. Thus the common good can often change, although there are some things — such as the basic requirements for staying alive: food, water, and shelter — that are always good for all people.

en.wikipedia.org...

Common good is not a feature only of socialism...


Originally posted by BurntGermanTongue
Thanks for giving us the 1920's definition that was made to make it sound all evil and scary. You're a champ. In socialism, the means of production are owned both by the workers of the workplaces and by the public at large....


So you are another CLOSET COMMUNIST...


The definition of socialism HAS ALWAYS BEEN the means of production owned and controlled by the state... To this day that is it's real definition, but COMMUNISTS like yourself are trying to blur the difference between socialism and communism to implement COMMUNISM faster...



Originally posted by BurntGermanTongue
No one said anything about bare minimum, however, given the projected rise in human population (upload.wikimedia.org...), it would eventually HAVE to come to that, whether you like it or not. The wasteful nature of capitalism will only further speed this up


In socialism/communism it is believed that people only need the bare minimum... Hence why in all socialist/communist dictatorships the state dictates how much, and what you can buy and for how much you can buy it... From China, Cuba, the U.S.S.R., North Korea, Vietnam, to every other socialist/communist dictatorship the state dictates/dictated what foods and how much people should buy and for how much...

The claim you made above is the same claim that socialist/communist dictatorships have made for over 80 years...



Originally posted by BurntGermanTongue
This too is not true. Possessions in socialism are still owned by the public, and are not considered private property to avoid the possibility of exploiting land, workers, and production. However, that does not mean that the objects that are given to people to suit their needs or wants cannot be used by themselves, their rights of its use are simply limited to avoid exploitation. Also, why would you need to sell things anyways when you would be provided for from the get go?


You just spouted the same lies that every socialist/communist dictator has made to lure people into believing COMMUNISM is great...

You sir have no idea what COMMUNISM, or even SOCIALISM are about...

You have just read and swallowed whole the lies and propaganda which have always been used to lure people into accepting the disease that are socialism/communism...

Possessions ARE NOT OWNED BY THE PUBLIC, not even in communism because "for the common good" as defined by socialism/communism such property might be better used by another family...

The state can decide if they can take away your house and land and put in it someone else the STATE decides should be there...

For the "common good" of the Party/revolution as defined by socialism/communism the STATE can decide to harvest mostly products that can be sold to other nations instead of harvesting more food for the people.

edit on 8-6-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by BurntGermanTongue
 


I am sure you are going to start claiming, and spreading the same lies other socialists/communists have been using for decades... "socialism/communism have never been truly tried" despite the fact that over 120 million people have been murdered under socialist/communist dictatorships in about 80 years... And that's without mentioning the millions more that were/are imprisoned for not accepting socialism/communism...

People like you make me sick... Wanting to implement the same ideologies that have brought so much death and suffering in 80 years...

edit on 8-6-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Again, you are so wrong it is not even funny... Native Americans did have a sort of government, the council of elders, which decided/decide whether the tribe should move, etc, but it couldn't decide what to do with the private property of individuals...


Thanks for nitpicking my statement rather than providing an actual point. I really enjoy sifting through irrelevant words when trying to reply, y'know? Also, simply saying things does not make them true, no matter how many times you say it.

www.wealthandwant.com...

"Land, broadly defined, belonged to everyone and was the common heritage of all humanity.15 One could no more “own” land than one could own water, air, or other parts of nature, at least in the sense of ownership that people often use today."

"Native Americans tied the concept of property not to ownership but to use. 'One used it, one moved on, and use was shared with others.'"


Collective ownership didn't//doesn't exist among most native American tribes... What a warrior found was his, and not for everyone else... What a warrior won in battle was his...Warriors had private property which included horses...


Again (what is this, the fifth time, hahaha), there is a HUGE difference between using something, and owning something. I could be using something that could be owned by the public, but that doesn't imply ownership. As my sources (which I would consider better than no sources) pointed out, everything was shared in common, so I don't think I need to linger on this prattle anymore


Common good to an extent exists even in Capitalism... hence a free market/capitalism where people would trade things, including skills for the common good of the individuals involved...


Yes, what with that exploitation of labourers, slaves, and government. You're a pretty funny guy, you know that?


Common good is not a feature only of socialism...


I never said it was exclusive to socialism



The definition of socialism HAS ALWAYS BEEN the means of production owned and controlled by the state... To this day that is it's real definition, but COMMUNISTS like yourself are trying to blur the difference between socialism and communism to implement COMMUNISM faster...


Say! Since you like wikipedia so much... en.wikipedia.org...

"Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership and/or control of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy,[1] and a political philosophy advocating such a system."



In socialism/communism it is believed that people only need the bare minimum... Hence why in all socialist/communist dictatorships the state dictates how much, and what you can buy and for how much you can buy it... From China, Cuba, the U.S.S.R., North Korea, Vietnam, to every other socialist/communist dictatorship the state dictates/dictated what foods and how much people should buy and for how much...


I'd suggest reading about socialism and communism before complaining about socialism and communism, there are books for that purpose. The previous countries you mentioned were neither communist nor socialist, they were statist.



You just spouted the same lies that every socialist/communist dictator has made to lure people into believing COMMUNISM is great...

You sir have no idea what COMMUNISM, or even SOCIALISM are about...


How are my statements "lies?" I am explaining a socio economic system and how it functions, if there is something I am saying untruthfully, do tell



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


umm...I want an apple, I eat the apple, not only is it mine, it is now part of me??

okay, so it's kind of like a huge rent a center that you can go into anytime you want to sign out whatever you want to use at the moment, with the agreement they you will return it when you are done....
I am having a big barbecue tonight, but I don't have a smoker big enough, or the table and chairs to sit everyone, I also want to have some lively music but don't have the stereo...I'd be out of luck as it is, but it would be no problem in a socialist system, even if it wasn't "mine"... and well, I am sorry, but one would HAVE TO have some personal belonging, since well, no one would want to wear someone else's underwear, now would they??

I am not saying it would be a better system than we have now, only that one could possibly be created. I have little faith that it ever would be that lasted long because human nature would step in and it would quickly be turned into haves and have nots....

but, well, my idea of the rent a center would conserve resources, since then we all wouldn't have to go out and buy smokers that we would use just a few times a year, so in reality, not as many would need to be manufactured. there's alot of things we don't use that often that sit around our house. it would conserve on natural resource. it's only not possible because it's not that pleasant an idea to most of us, so we haven't thought it through to see just how possible it could be. we like our independence, our freedom, and we want our smokers when we want it, not when the rent a center has one available!



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by BurntGermanTongue
 


I am sorry, but native american women would make their teepees, and it would be theirs, it wouldn't even belong to their husband, who had his own. they would make baskets, tan hides, all kinds of things, and they would be used to trade for the things that they needed. there were gov'ts, look into the Iroquois nation, of which some of our gov't was founded on!

the idea that they passed their items on to another when they got tired of them is no different than me giving another something that I don't want anymore. go to local salvation army and see all the things that people have grown tired of and given away!



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by BurntGermanTongue
 


Right, ask yourself why these are unacceptable.






top topics



 
40
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join